1

Filed 11/14/22 Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SAVE NORTH PETALUMA RIVER 

AND WETLANDS et al.,

Petitioners and Appellants,

v.

CITY OF PETALUMA et al.,

Respondents,

J. CYRIL JOHNSON INVESTMENT 

CORPORATION,

Respondent and Real Party in 

Interest.

 A163192

 (Sonoma County

 Super. Ct. No. SCV-266157)

This is a mandate proceeding to review an agency’s decision for 

compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. 

Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.1) At issue is the decision of the City of 

Petaluma (the City) to certify the environmental impact report (EIR) for a 

180-unit apartment complex in Petaluma proposed by real party in interest J. 

Cyril Johnson Investment Corporation (JCJIC). Save North Petaluma River 

1 All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise 

indicated.
2

and Wetlands and Beverly Alexander (petitioners) appeal the trial court’s 

decision upholding the City’s certification of the EIR. We shall affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2003, JCJIC proposed the development of a 312-unit apartment

complex called the “Sid Commons Apartment Project,” which would be 

located in Petaluma on roughly 15.45 acres of vacant land along the 

Petaluma River at the northern end of Graylawn Avenue (the Project). The 

site of the Project includes grasses, wetlands, oaks, and other vegetation. In 

July 2007, the City published the “Notice of Preparation” for the Project. The 

environmental consultant expected that a Draft EIR could be completed in 

approximately five months. 

In May 2008, shortly after the City began work on the Draft EIR, the 

City adopted General Plan 2025.

2 To conform to General Plan 2025, JCJIC

submitted its Project application as a smaller 278-unit complex and also

revised the Project to include river terracing.

In October 2015, the City began meeting with regulatory agencies to 

solicit their input on the Project. After conducting site visits, the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service

2 General Plan 2025 included the following revisions to the previous 

General Plan: (1) increase of the allowable residential density at the site; 

(2) addition of Policy 1-P-2, providing for infill development at equal or higher 

density and intensity than surrounding uses; (3) addition of the Project Site 

to the Land Inventory of Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element of the 

General Plan; (4) addition of Policy 8-P-30, which requires the set back of 

new development at least 200 feet from the centerline of the Petaluma River; 

and (5) addition of Policy 8-P-28, which called for the “ ‘construction of a flood 

terrace system to allow the [Petaluma] River to accommodate a 100-year 

storm event within a modified River channel, to the extent feasible given

existing physical and natural constraints.’ ”
3

all provided feedback on the issues they believed the EIR should address. In 

view of General Plan 2025 and the agency feedback, a “Habitat Mitigation 

Monitoring Plan” was created in order to: address habitat replacement and

mitigation for impacts caused by the general plan’s requirement for river 

terracing; preserve existing native riparian “ ‘high value’ ” habitat where

practicable; increase the acreage of aquatic habitat within the Project site; 

increase the functions and values of the existing habitat; and improve flood 

capacity of the Petaluma River. The monitoring plan was incorporated into 

the “Biological Resources” chapter of the Draft EIR. 

On March 1, 2018, the City published the Draft EIR for public review 

and comment. JCJIC provided various consultant studies regarding 

environmental impacts, including a March 2004 report by Wetlands Research 

Associates, Inc. (WRA) of so-called “Special Status Species” (the 2004 WRA 

Special Status Species Report or the 2004 WRA Report). In April 2018, the 

Planning Commission considered the Draft EIR and took public comment

that included concerns from neighboring residents regarding traffic impacts 

to Graylawn Avenue and neighboring streets, impacts to the floodplain, and 

decreased quality of life for the neighborhood. The commission provided 

feedback on the Draft EIR and offered comments to address the intense 

density of the Project and to provide for an appropriate buffer between the 

Project and the riparian corridor. 

On May 21, 2018, the City Council held a hearing on the Draft EIR.

City staff and the EIR consultant presented the Draft EIR, summarized the 

public comment, and reported on the outcome of the Planning Commission 

hearing. The council considered the public comment, which reiterated

concerns about the impact of increased traffic on neighboring streets and 

decreased quality of life for the neighborhood. Commenters were also 
4

concerned about impacts to flooding, the floodplain, hydrology, wetlands, the 

Petaluma River, wildlife, trees, and access to the proposed river trail. City 

Council members provided comment and requested supplemental 

documentation, noting concerns about the hydrology analysis, noise

modeling, and traffic data. Although the council authorized preparation of a 

final EIR, a majority of its members expressed a preference for a refined 

concept that would reduce density, minimize traffic impacts, provide an 

enhanced buffer between the proposed development and the riparian 

corridor, and minimize impacts to mature trees and wetland features.

In October 2019, the City issued its “Response to Comments/Final 

Environmental Impact Report” (Final EIR). In response to the significant 

environmental conclusions raised in the Draft EIR and the comments from

public agencies and the public, JCJIC proposed a revised version of the

Project that would further reduce the proposed complex from 278 units to 205

units; reduce the height of certain residential buildings from three to two 

stories; increase building setback from the Petaluma River; and implement a 

“Traffic Calming Plan” on Graylawn and Jess Avenues. The Final EIR

analyzed these revisions and concluded they eliminated or reduced several of 

the potential significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the original 

plan. Although the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City 

Council certify the EIR, it did not recommend approval of necessary zoning 

amendments. 

On January 8, 2020, JCJIC submitted another reduced version of the 

Project with 180 units in mostly three-story buildings except for the two-story 

buildings in the areas adjacent to existing single-family homes (the Second 
5

Revision).

3 Among other things, these changes were intended to reduce the 

building footprint and increase the setback from the Petaluma River; 

preserve two wetlands near the river and avoid development in the River 

Plan Corridor; and preserve additional trees with a flood terrace design 

adjustment. The changes would also reduce flood impacts and result in a 

further 12 percent reduction in vehicle trips.

On February 3, 2020, the City Council held a hearing on whether to 

certify the EIR based on the Second Revision and approve the zoning 

amendments. A City staff memo prepared for this hearing thoroughly

detailed the history of the Project, including the Planning Commission’s 

consideration of the Final EIR and JCJIC’s appeal of the commission’s denial 

of the proposed zoning amendments; the comments received on the Draft and

Final EIRs; the extent of JCJIC’s public outreach to better understand and 

respond to neighborhood concerns; and the multiple revisions JCJIC made to

the Project in response to comments. The staff report concluded that the 

changes in the Second Revision reduced impacts, reduced conflicts regarding 

tree protection and wetlands preservation, and addressed the concerns that

had caused the Planning Commission to deny the zoning amendments. It 

also noted the Second Revision was within the range of alternatives 

addressed in the EIR and would not result in new or more substantial 

impacts compared to prior versions. 

Meanwhile, earlier that afternoon, petitioners submitted a letter to the 

City Council challenging numerous aspects of the Project’s CEQA review. As 

relevant here, petitioners disputed the adequacy of the EIR’s special status 

3 The Project site could have accommodated up to 282 units under the

Land Inventory referenced in the revised General Plan. 
6

species analysis and challenged the EIR’s failure to analyze emergency 

evacuations.

After several hours of deliberation and public comment, the City 

Council voted to certify the EIR and to overturn the Planning Commission’s

denial of zoning amendments. The council subsequently approved the zoning 

amendments by ordinance on February 24, 2020. 

Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the 

adequacy of the EIR on a number of grounds, including the two raised here.

The trial court held a hearing and thereafter denied the petition in a detailed 

45-page decision. After entry of judgment, petitioners timely appealed.

Discussion

A. CEQA Standard of Review

“CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term 

protection to the environment.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game 

Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112.) “With narrow exceptions, CEQA requires 

an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project

that may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Laurel Heights 

Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 

376, 390 (Laurel Heights).) The fundamental purpose of an EIR is “to provide 

public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the 

effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list 

ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; 

and to indicate alternatives to such a project.” (§ 21061.) As such, the EIR is

an informational document that functions as “the primary means of achieving 

the Legislature’s considered declaration that it is the policy of this state to 

‘take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the

environmental quality of the state.’ (§ 21001, subd. (a).)” (Laurel Heights, at 
7

p. 392; see generally Guidelines, § 15003, subd. (a)4 [“EIR requirement is the 

heart of CEQA”].) 

The EIR serves as a “document of accountability” because it requires

certification or rejection by the responsible public officials. (Laurel Heights, 

supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392.) “If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will

know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject 

environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can 

respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees.” (Ibid.) Although 

perfection in preparing the EIR is not required, the agency must reasonably 

and in good faith discuss a project in detail sufficient to enable the public to

discern the “ ‘analytic route’ ” that the “ ‘agency traveled from evidence to 

action.’ ” (Id. at p. 404; see Guidelines, § 15151; San Franciscans for Livable 

Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 

596, 614.)

In a mandate proceeding to review an agency’s decision for compliance 

with CEQA, our role is to determine the EIR’s sufficiency as an informative 

document; we do not pass upon the correctness of the agency’s environmental 

determinations. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392.) Like the trial 

court, we “review the administrative record to determine whether the agency 

prejudicially abused its discretion.” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. 

Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 116–117 (Save 

Our Peninsula).) For purposes of CEQA, an abuse of discretion “is

established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if 

the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” 

4 All references to “Guidelines” are to the state CEQA Guidelines, which

implement the provisions of CEQA and are set forth in the California Code of

Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.
8

(§ 21168.5; see Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 

1236.) 

CEQA regulations define substantial evidence as “enough relevant 

information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair 

argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions 

might also be reached.” (Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).) Whether a fair 

argument can be made requires an examination of “the whole record before 

the lead agency.” (Ibid.) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable 

assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts”

(Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (b)), but cannot be established by “[a]rgument, 

speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly 

erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do 

not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment”

(Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a)).

The substantial evidence standard requires that we “ ‘resolve 

reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative finding and decision’ ” and 

refrain from weighing conflicting evidence and second guessing agency 

determinations that a project’s adverse effects are or are not sufficiently

mitigated. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 392–393.) It is the 

burden of the project opponents to prove the EIR is legally inadequate. (Save 

Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 117.)

On appeal, petitioners contend the trial court erred and abused its 

discretion in upholding the City’s certification of the EIR because, in their 

view, the EIR failed to properly analyze the Project’s impacts on special 

status species and on public safety in the event of an evacuation. We address 

these claims in order.
9

B. The EIR Properly Analyzed Impacts to Special Status 

Species

CEQA regulations contemplate that the physical conditions existing 

when a Notice of Preparation is published “will normally constitute the 

baseline physical conditions” used to describe the environmental setting and 

to determine the significant effects of a proposed project. (Guidelines, 

§ 15125, subd. (a).) Knowledge of the baseline conditions is “critical to the 

assessment of environmental impacts,” and special emphasis is “placed on 

environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be

affected by the project.” (Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c).) When an EIR

contains an inadequate description of the environmental setting for a project,

“a proper analysis of project impacts [is] impossible.” (Galante Vineyards v.

Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 

1122 [invalidating EIR containing only passing references to surrounding 

viticulture]; see Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency

(2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 873–875.)

Here, the Notice of Preparation was issued in July 2007. As the 

administrative record documents, the EIR contains a 70-page analysis

addressing potential impacts to biological resources on the Project site, 

including special status species. The biological resources section of the EIR 

was prepared by Booker Holton, an expert biologist, who investigated the 

Project site following the Notice of Preparation and relied on a number of 

sources—including the 2004 WRA Special Status Species Report, site visits, 

various state and federal plant and wildlife databases, input from regulatory 

agencies, arborist reports, vegetation mapping, and environmental 

communities mapping of the site—to support his analysis.

As defined in the EIR’s biological resources section, special status

species are “plants and animals legally protected under state and federal 
10

endangered species acts or other regulations, or those species that the

scientific community considers sufficiently rare to qualify for such listing.”

Based on WRA’s June 2009 mapping of seven different habitat types on the 

Project site,

5 the EIR detailed the following information concerning the 

possible presence of special status plants and animals, and offered analyses 

concerning the impact of Project activities on such species and the effect of 

recommended mitigation measures.

1. Special Status Plant Species

The EIR described the existing conditions of the Project site as follows: 

“No special status plants have a moderate or high potential to occur on the 

Project site. This determination was based on the habitat types present on 

the site, the known habitat requirements for those special status plants 

potentially occurring in the general area, and the results of previous surveys 

of the property. Furthermore, the highly disturbed nature of the site would 

indicate that none are likely to be present.” (Fn. omitted.)

In its impact analysis, the EIR concluded “the potential for the Project 

to result in adverse impacts on special status plant species is less than 

significant.” In so concluding, the EIR explained: “Potential special status 

plant habitats in the Project area were evaluated in 2008 and crossreferenced with [the California Natural Diversity Database] and [the 

California Native Plant Society] lists of special status plants potentially 

present in the region. Based on the habitat types present and other 

knowledge of the site, special status plant species were determined to have 

either low potential for being present, or were determined to be not present 

at the Project site.”

5 The seven habitats are: non-native grassland; valley oak woodland;

riparian woodland; mixed woodland; seasonal wetlands; Petaluma River 

(waters of the U.S.); and detention basin.
11

In light of this assessment, mitigation measures for the protection of 

special status plants were deemed unnecessary and none was recommended.

2. Special Status Birds

The EIR described “a moderate to high potential of occurrence for 

several special status bird species to occur in the Project area.” According to 

the EIR, special status species that were likely to forage and/or nest in the

types of habitats located on the Project site included white-tailed kite, Allen’s 

hummingbird, loggerhead shrike, salt marsh common yellowthroat, 

California Ridgeway’s rail, and California black rail. Another state 

endangered/federal threatened species that “may be present” on the site 

included the yellow-billed cuckoo, while other “state Species of Special 

Concern” that “could nest” in the Project site grasslands included “long-eared 

owl, Purple martin, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, and Northern harrier.”

In analyzing the Project’s impact, the EIR concluded: “Based on 

existing habitat conditions, there is a moderate to high potential for 

occurrence of four special status bird species and raptors to occur at the 

Project site.” Specifically, “[t]rees along the Petaluma River could provide 

suitable nesting habitat, and grasslands on the site provide suitable foraging

habitat for the White-Tailed Kite, a [California Department of Fish and

Wildlife] fully protected species. The Allen’s Hummingbird, a [U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service] Species of Conservation Concern, are common breeding 

species in riparian and scrub habitats, and may breed at the Project site 

along Petaluma River. Grasslands and adjacent shrubs and riparian trees

within the Project site provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for 

Loggerhead Shrike, a [California Department of Fish and Wildlife] Species of 

Special Concern and a federal Species of Conservation Concern. Salt marsh 
12

common yellowthroat, a federal Species of Conservation Concern and a 

[California Department of Fish and Wildlife] Species of Concern, may nest

along Petaluma River in emergent vegetation or willows. Furthermore, the

oak and riparian woodlands that exist on three sides of the Project site also

provides suitable nesting habitat for several raptor species. [¶] Potentially 

significant impacts to these bird species include nest and/or young 

abandonment, resulting from grading or construction disturbance.”

Additionally, the impact analysis determined that “[w]hile project site 

surveys did not find habitat suitable for area bat species, the 2017 arborist 

study noted two trees with cavities” that “may provide suitable roosting 

habitat for some bat species such as the pallid bat.”

The EIR then recommended two measures “[t]o address the potential 

for Project-related grading and construction activities to affect special status 

bird species.” The first mitigation measure called for pre-construction 

nesting surveys of trees in the Project site in the event grading or

construction is “scheduled during the nesting season of migratory birds 

(February 1 through August 30)” and for implementation of specified 

protection measures overseen by a qualified biologist in the event any active 

nest is found. The second mitigation measure recommended pre-construction 

tree roost surveys by a qualified biologist and other measures to protect bats 

during all tree removal and vegetation management activities on the Project

site. The EIR determined these mitigation measures would “prevent harm to 

special status bird and bat species” and would mitigate impacts to such 

species “to a level of less than significant.”

3. Special Status Fish, Reptile, and Amphibian Species

Citing the California Natural Diversity Database, the EIR reported 

that three special status fish species—Sacramento splittail, Central
13

California Coast ESU steelhead trout, and Chinook salmon—are “known or 

are suspected to occur in the reach of the Petaluma River that runs along the 

northeastern edge of the Project site.”

The EIR additionally addressed the possible presence of the California 

Red-Legged Frog and the Western Pond Turtle, stating: “The assessment of 

existing conditions determined that special status species habitat is unlikely 

to occur on the uplands portion of the site that is proposed for development.”

Specifically, the uplands development portion provides “low potential” for 

these species due to lack of “suitable aquatic habitat” for the turtle species

and “no suitable breeding habitat” for the frog species. However, the EIR 

cited “[California Natural Diversity Database] 2013” in reporting recorded 

occurrences of the frog species “within a three-mile radius of the site” and 

cited the 2004 WRA Special Status Species Report for its conclusion that 

“turtles may occasionally nest near the Project boundary.”

In discussing the potential impacts of the Project on these special

status species, the EIR reported that the “Project’s proposed construction of a

river terrace expanding the banks of the River, as directed by the General 

Plan, may result in both direct and indirect adverse effects.” In particular,

grading of the floodway terrace adjacent to the river and trimming and

clearing of vegetation along the riverbank “could result in the removal of 

habitat for California red-legged frog and Western pond turtle.” Such Project 

activities could also result in “degradation of special status fisheries habitat.”

Specifically, “[u]nintentional introduction of sediment into the water from 

erosion or runoff has the potential to affect steelhead, green sturgeon and/or 

the Sacramento splittail’s feeding rates and growth, increase mortality, cause 

behavioral avoidance, and reduce macro-invertebrate prey populations,”

while unintended introduction into the water of petrochemicals associated 
14

with grading equipment “could injure or kill these fish populations and/or 

their macro-invertebrate prey populations.”

To address these impacts, the EIR made the following 

recommendations. JCJIC “shall obtain all required authorizations from the 

U.S. Army Corps, the [Regional Water Quality Control Board], the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other regulatory agencies with 

jurisdiction (as applicable) . . . . Copies of applicable permits shall be 

obtained by the Project applicant and provided to the City of Petaluma prior 

to grading, and the Project applicant shall implement all avoidance and 

minimization measures as required by these agency authorizations.” For

example, the EIR explained, such agency permits and approvals would be 

required before any dredged or fill material could be discharged into the 

Petaluma River, and the Project applicant would be required to comply with 

any terms and conditions imposed by the agencies for protection of Central 

California Coast steelhead trout and other fish. 

In addition to all the avoidance and mitigation measures required by

the regulatory agencies, the EIR recommended the following four additional 

mitigation measures to provide further protection: (1) to the extent feasible, 

grading in the river area and vegetation removal must be limited to specific 

dates in order to “avoid potential impacts to anadromous fish species and 

nesting birds” and to avoid interference with “adult spawning migrations or 

the outmigration of smolts”; (2) requiring a “qualified [U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service]-approved biologist” to “conduct pre-construction surveys of all 

ground disturbance areas within suitable habitats in the Project site to 

determine if California red-legged frogs and Western pond turtles are 

present” within 48 hours of the start of grading operations; (3) requiring the

biologist to work with the resource agencies to determine whether and to
15

what extent relocation and/or exclusion buffers would be appropriate in the 

event the special status frog or turtle species are detected; and 

(4) implementing best management practices prior to and during 

construction, as required and/or approved by the resource agencies, to protect 

special status species and habitats, including active oversight and monitoring 

of activities by a [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]-approved biologist with 

“stop-work authority.”

According to the EIR, implementation of all identified mitigation 

measures “would reduce potential impacts of the proposed Project on special 

status species and sensitive habitats to a level of less than significant. It is 

anticipated that once construction of the Petaluma River terrace and the 

[Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan] is complete, habitat for these species 

will be restored and possibly increased as a result.”

4. Analysis

As the foregoing reflects, the EIR’s discussion of special status plant 

and animal species drew not only from the 2004 WRA Special Status Species 

Report, but also from information of the site’s environmental conditions

obtained by experts who conducted subsequent evaluations and site visits.

6 

After describing the habitats existing on the Project site, the EIR identified—

based on cross-referencing such habitats with the habitats of the special 

status species listed in state and federal plant and animal databases and also 

6 Apparently, the 2004 WRA Report did not include a survey for special

status species on 6.24 acres of the Project site, including the Petaluma River 

and the riparian habitat along the river. The EIR, however, incorporated the

Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan as an appendix to address the concern 

that the river terracing component of the Project “will unavoidably impact 

certain biological resources along the Riverbanks including riparian and oak 

woodland habitat.” The EIR incorporated the information from the 

monitoring plan as part of its special status species analysis. 
16

based on other site-specific information—the special status species that occur 

or might occur on the site and be impacted by the Project. All this resulted in 

the EIR’s discussion of 11 special status animals with moderate to high

potential for occurrence on the Project site—including six bird species, three 

fish species, one frog species, and one turtle species—plus the potential for

roosting on the site by some bat species. Thus, not only did the EIR base its 

analysis on “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert

opinion supported by facts” (Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (b)), but it amply

demonstrated the “ ‘analytic route’ ” from such evidence to the action

recommended and ultimately taken. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 

p. 404.)

Petitioners challenge the EIR as deficient because: (1) the City never 

investigated the Project’s baseline conditions as of 2007 when the Notice of

Preparation was published, and the record contains no evidence of studies or 

surveys for special status species at that point in time; (2) substantial 

evidence does not support the EIR’s discussion of baseline conditions for 

special status species; and (3) absent accurate and complete information on 

the environmental setting, the EIR could not and did not adequately analyze

or mitigate the Project’s impacts on protected species. We are not persuaded.

These claims are premised largely on the assumption that the 

information in the 2004 WRA Special Status Species Report provided an 

inadequate basis for evaluating the Project’s impact on special status species

because the report preceded the 2007 Notice of Preparation by three years 

and was based on a site assessment conducted in 2001. As a preliminary

matter, we reject any suggestion that the 2004 report was based solely on a

2001 site survey. Notably, Appendix A to the report contained information 

reflecting a comprehensive assessment of the potential presence of special 
17

status plant and animal species on the Project site based on WRA’s review of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “Official Species Lists for Cotati USGS 

Quad (2004),” the California Department of Fish and Game “Natural 

Diversity Data Base (2003),” “searches of the Cotati USGS Quad and 

surrounding 9 Quads,” and the California Native Plant Society “electronic 

inventory (2004).” And apart from the 2004 WRA Report, the EIR indicated

its analysis included updated database reviews in 2008, 2010, and 2013, and

was based on information gathered from site visits in 2009, 2016,

7 and 2017.

Petitioners insist that a study conducted at the time of the Notice of 

Preparation is indispensable for setting the appropriate special status species 

baseline. But they cite no authority suggesting that CEQA is violated where, 

as here, the EIR’s analysis on the topic was drawn from site visits, studies,

and habitat evaluations that were undertaken both before and after the

Notice of Preparation. Petitioners do not contend the EIR’s description of the 

existing conditions and habitats on the undeveloped Project site was 

incomplete or otherwise flawed for purposes of assessing the presence of 

special status species. As the California Supreme Court has explained, 

“[n]either CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines mandates a uniform, inflexible

rule for determination of the existing conditions baseline.” (Communities for

a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 

Cal.4th 310, 328; see Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 125

[“the date for establishing baseline cannot be a rigid one”].) Agencies enjoy

the discretion to decide, in the first instance, how to realistically measure the

existing physical conditions without the proposed project (Communities for a 

Better Environment, at p. 328), and the selection of a baseline will be upheld 

7 JCJIC’s appellate briefing represents that this site visit actually

occurred in 2015 and that the EIR’s reference to 2016 was a typographical 

error.
18

when supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Citizens for East Shore Parks v. 

State Lands Com. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549, 562–563; Cherry Valley Pass 

Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 336–337).

The record here demonstrates that substantial evidence supports the EIR’s 

analysis of the special status species that were subject to the Project’s impact.

Indeed, petitioners point to no evidence that the biological conditions 

existing on the Project site in 2007 differed from those in 2004 when WRA 

conducted its cross-referencing study, or in later years when updated plant 

and wildlife databases were consulted. For example, no special status plant 

species were reported in a 2008 evaluation of the plant habitats in the Project 

area, or in a March 2009 vegetation mapping of the Project site, or in a June 

2009 biological communities mapping.

8 This was consistent with the 2004

WRA Report’s account that no special status plants had ever been observed 

on the Project site.

9 The information in the EIR also aligned with the 

information contained in the 2008 EIR for General Plan 2025, which

encompassed the Project site and featured its own analysis of special status 

plant and animal species for the broader Petaluma area.

Moreover, when experts and regulatory agencies brought new

information to JCJIC’s attention, JCJIC responded by working with experts

and City staff to ensure that the EIR addressed such matters. Consequently,

the EIR addresses several special status species that were not mentioned in

the 2004 WRA Report. For example, in 2015 the City and regulatory 

8 Petitioners suggest the March 2009 vegetation mapping and the June 

2009 biological communities mapping are not in the EIR or in the record.

That is inaccurate. 

9 The administrative record contains a September 7, 2004, document in

which WRA elaborated that “surveys conducted by Jones and Stokes in 1997

for the Corona Reach Specific Plan (which included the present Sid Commons 

project area) resulted in no special status plants observed.”
19

agencies alerted JCJIC of the need for additional evidence regarding on-site

fish species. This prompted an analysis that ultimately resulted in the EIR’s

evaluation that the Project’s grading and construction activities could result 

in adverse effects to three fish species and inclusion of recommendations to 

mitigate such effects.

10 Additionally, a 2017 arborist study noted two trees

with cavities that may provide suitable roosting habitat for some bat species, 

which led to the EIR’s inclusion of recommended mitigation measures to

protect bats during all tree removal and vegetation management activities on 

the Project site.

Despite a professed concern that the EIR inadequately addressed the

Project’s impact on plants and wildlife, petitioners suggest the foregoing

information is irrelevant because, among other things, no additional special 

status species studies were conducted and because studies post-dating 2007 

have no bearing on the site conditions existing in 2007. But again, 

petitioners do not challenge the accuracy or completeness of the EIR’s 

description of the Project site’s existing biological and habitat conditions; nor 

do they point to anything indicating that such conditions were materially 

different in 2007 for purposes of a special status species analysis. “The fact 

that additional studies might be helpful does not mean that they are 

required.” (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 

Cal.App.4th 1383, 1396; Guidelines, § 15204, subd. (a).) And, if anything, the

EIR’s inclusion of the post-2007 information indicates that the EIR was 

prepared with an eye toward “completeness” and “a good faith effort at full 

disclosure.” (Guidelines, § 15151.)

10 Nothing in the record indicates continued concern on the part of the 

regulatory agencies after the EIR addressed the identified informational 

gaps.
20

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife 

Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713 does not 

compel a different conclusion. There, the EIR for a housing project was found 

inadequate and misleading because it understated the significance of the

adjacent San Joaquin River, ignored a nearby wetland wildlife preserve, and 

did not address whether wetland areas were on the project site, despite 

comment letters flagging such concerns. (Id. at pp. 722–729.) Here, in 

contrast, there is no evidence that the EIR omitted or inaccurately described 

the material aspects of the biological conditions on or near the Project site, 

and the EIR expressly took into account important information concerning 

nearby habitats.

Petitioners’ other authorities are likewise unavailing. In Madera 

Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48

(Madera Oversight Coalition), the Notice of Preparation was issued in 2006 

but the EIR’s traffic analysis included references to three different baselines,

one of which was a future baseline using traffic conditions forecast for the

year 2025. (Id. at pp. 59, 92–93.) After holding that lead agencies have no 

discretion to adopt a baseline that uses conditions predicated to occur on a 

date subsequent to an EIR’s certification (id. at pp. 89–90, 92), the Court of 

Appeal remanded the matter with instructions to grant the petition for writ 

of mandate as to the EIR’s traffic analysis because of its failure to clearly 

identify the baseline used in analyzing the project’s impacts (id. at pp. 107–

108).

11 In Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 99, the court rejected 

11 The California Supreme Court disapproved Madera Oversight 

Coalition, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th 48, insofar as it held “an agency may never 

employ predicted future conditions as the sole baseline for analysis of a 

project’s environmental impacts.” (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition 

Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 457.)
21

an EIR’s baseline estimate of a property’s water usage that relied on “a

‘standard water demand factor for irrigated pastureland,’ ” because 

substantial evidence did not show the property was in fact irrigated

pastureland. (Id. at p. 122.) Finally, in County of Amador v. El Dorado 

County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, the EIR for a project to 

provide additional water for consumptive use was found inadequate for 

purposes of determining the project’s impacts because, among other things, it 

failed to adequately describe the baseline environment and historical

operations for pre-project water distribution. (Id. at pp. 941, 954–955.) 

Unlike the EIRs in those cases, the EIR here did not purport to measure

impacts based on conditions that did not exist on the Project site or on 

conditions that were forecasted to exist at some point in the distant future. 

And as discussed, there is no indication that the site conditions documented

in the instant EIR were incorrectly or incompletely described for purposes of 

a special status species analysis.

Petitioners also contend the EIR’s references to studies and site visits 

did not constitute substantial evidence supporting its special status species

analysis because such studies and visits were not included in the 

administrative record and were not otherwise adequately documented, e.g.,

the names of the participants and descriptions of what took place are not

disclosed in the record. But the CEQA Guidelines make clear that factual

information in the EIR itself “may constitute substantial evidence in the

record to support the agency’s action on the project if its decision is later 

challenged in court.” (Guidelines, §15121, subd. (c); see Karlson v. City of

Camarillo (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 789, 801 [“EIRs constitute evidence”].) 

Moreover, section 15148 of the Guidelines provides: “Preparation of EIRs is 

dependent upon information from many sources, including engineering 
22

project reports and many scientific documents relating to environmental

features. These documents should be cited but not included in the EIR. The 

EIR shall cite all documents used in its preparation including, where 

possible, the page and section number of any technical reports which were

used as the basis for any statements in the EIR.” (Italics added.)

Here it is unclear from the record whether the site visits cited in the 

EIR resulted in the type of documents contemplated by section 15148 of the 

Guidelines. But even assuming that to be the case, the EIR need not include

all the reports used in its preparation. (Guidelines, § 15148.) Thus, an 

agency’s failure to disclose a consultant’s memo or to provide a 

comprehensive summary of its underlying assumptions and data does not 

necessarily render an EIR inadequate. And while “ ‘we must ensure strict 

compliance with the procedures and mandates of [CEQA],’ ” we also must 

remain “mindful of the purposes of the statute in deciding how strict to be in 

interpreting the Guidelines.” (El Morro Community Assn. v. California Dept. 

of Parks & Recreation (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1354 (El Morro).) In this

case, the EIR’s analysis incorporated the information gleaned from the site 

visits and databases and generally identified the source and date of such 

information.

Moreover, the City provided an extended public review and comment 

period for the Draft EIR from March 1 to May 21, 2018, affording petitioners

an ample opportunity to request the background details of the identified site 

visits. In El Morro, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th 1341, for example, when the

petitioner complained of the draft EIR’s failure to specifically reference each 

of its supporting technical reports, the agency responded with a list of the

reports and advised the petitioner the reports were available for public 

review in the agency’s office. (Id. at p. 1353.) Here, however, petitioners first 
23

raised their complaint just hours before the City Council’s February 3, 2020,

hearing on the Final EIR, which did not allow the City to respond in a similar 

manner.

In sum, petitioners fail to show that the EIR was rendered legally 

inadequate simply because no special status species analysis was conducted 

in 2007. (See Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 117.) As the

EIR explains, its special status species analysis was drawn from site visits, 

studies, and habitat evaluations that were undertaken both before and after

the Notice of Preparation, and there is no indication the analysis was flawed 

due to material changes in the on-site habitats over the time period at issue. 

Thus, the EIR’s analysis and the information upon which it relied allowed for

intelligent decisionmaking concerning the Project’s impacts on the identified

special status bird and bat species that might forage, roost, or nest on the 

site, as well as its impacts on special status fisheries habitat and on special 

status turtle and frog species.

Having rejected the claimed inadequacy of the EIR’s special status 

species analysis, we reject petitioners’ further contention that the EIR could 

not and did not offer recommendations that would adequately mitigate the 

Project’s impacts on these protected species.

C. The EIR Properly Analyzed Public Safety Impacts Relating

to Emergencies

In accordance with CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, the City’s plans and

policies, and agency and professional standards, the EIR acknowledged the 

Project’s impact would be considered significant if the Project would, as 

indicated in Appendix G of the Guidelines,

12 “[i]mpair implementation of or 

12 Appendix G of the Guidelines contains a sample checklist of 

environmental considerations that lead agencies may use to assess a project’s 

impact.
24

physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency 

evacuation plan.” (Italics added.)

The EIR surveyed the applicable regulatory landscape and highlighted 

the City’s adoption of the “2013 California Fire Code,” which incorporates the 

“2012 Edition of the International Fire Code.” The EIR identified the 

following emergency-related code provisions relevant to the proposed Project: 

“D103.3—Turning Radius. The minimum turning radius shall be 

determined by the Fire Code Official or as approved by local standards. 

[¶] D103.4—Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 

one hundred fifty feet (150’) (45.720 m) shall be provided with width and

turnaround provisions in accordance with the local agency requirements for 

public streets or as approved by local standards. [¶] D106.1—Projects 

Having More Than Fifty (50) Dwelling Units. Multiple-family 

residential projects having more than fifty (50) dwelling units shall be 

provided with two (2) separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.”

In view of these code provisions, the Draft EIR had proposed emergency

access to the Project site via existing Graylawn Avenue, with EVA 

(Emergency Vehicle Access) at Bernice Court and the creation of an at-grade 

crossing over railroad tracks (the Shasta Avenue extension). But the Final 

EIR proposed to eliminate the at-grade rail crossing in response to concerns 

that the crossing “would substantially increase roadway hazards and hazards 

for emergency vehicles accessing the Project site” and generate other 

undesirable impacts and complications. Instead, the Final EIR explained

that “[t]wo driveway connections are proposed to connect the Project to

Graylawn Avenue” and, as proposed in the Draft EIR, Bernice Court would 

provide “a secondary means of emergency access to the site.” The Bernice 

Court connection would provide emergency vehicle access “designed to meet 
25

all fire apparatus, turning radius and turnaround requirements of the 

Petaluma Fire Code.” 

Significantly, the EIR reported that “[t]he Petaluma Fire Department 

has reviewed this proposed EVA route and found it to provide acceptable 

emergency access to the site.” Moreover, the EIR explained, the “EVA design 

shall also meet additional recommendations of the City Fire Marshal to

prohibit parking and other obstructions, and to ensure that the Bernice Court 

EVA is continuously available for emergency use (e.g., bollards, red curb or 

red pavement striping, no-parking signage, etc.). Final EVA design

measures, including specific design details demonstrating these requirements 

will be provided and reviewed pursuant to the [Site Plan and Architectural 

Review] process and subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal.” In

light of this analysis, the EIR determined the public safety/emergency access

impacts of the Project were “Less than Significant.” All this amply supported 

the EIR’s conclusion that the Project would not “[i]mpair implementation of 

or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or 

emergency evacuation plan.” (Guidelines, Appendix G, italics added.)

Notably, petitioners fail to identify any other adopted emergency

response or emergency evacuation plans that required EIR analysis. Instead, 

they cite to a CEQA guideline providing that an EIR “should evaluate any 

potentially significant direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impacts 

of locating development in areas susceptible to hazardous conditions (e.g., 

floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas), including both short-term and 

long-term conditions, as identified in authoritative hazard maps, risk 

assessments or in land use plans addressing such hazards areas.” 

(Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a).) In petitioners’ view, the EIR was legally 

deficient because it omitted an analysis of egress and evacuation safety even 
26

though numerous current and former neighbors of the site submitted public 

comment sharing their experiences with flooding and grass fires in the area. 

Petitioners also cite to Professor Thomas Cova’s submission of a onepage letter less than a week before the City Council’s February 3, 2020,

hearing on the Final EIR. In his letter, Professor Cova described himself as a

“National Evacuation Expert” and opined that the Project may have 

significant public safety impacts in the event residents moving into the 

planned Sid Commons Apartments and residents from the neighboring Oak 

Creek Apartments have to evacuate from hazardous events such as “flooding 

along the Petaluma River, earthquakes, fire or a railway hazardous materials 

spill.” Noting that all such residents will be forced to use the same street for 

evacuations, Professor Cova called for further study of the impact of 

additional development. 

Even assuming, generously, that the submissions from the public and 

from Professor Cova provided evidence of a potential public safety impact as 

contemplated in section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, we may not 

reweigh conflicting evidence, and such submissions provide no basis for 

setting aside the City’s certification of the EIR. (See Laurel Heights, supra, 

47 Cal.3d at p. 393.) Rather, petitioners bear the burden of proving the EIR 

is legally inadequate. (Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 117.)

Our review of the EIR and administrative record discloses no cause for 

reversal. Case law establishes that an agency may rely on the expertise of its 

staff to determine that a project will not have a significant impact. (Gentry v. 

City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1379–1380 [upholding 

sufficiency of agency’s initial study].) Here, a City staff memo prepared for 

the February 3, 2020, hearing corroborated the public safety analysis in the 

EIR. In addressing public concern that “floodwaters within Graylawn and 
27

Jess Avenues would interfere with evacuation in the event of a 100-year 

flood,” the staff memo highlighted the point that the “Project does not propose 

any development within the regulatory floodplain of the Petaluma River. All 

development associated with the Sid Commons Apartment Project, including

access roads and infrastructure are located outside of the 100-year 

floodplain.” This analysis was consistent with a FEMA floodplains mapping 

featured in the Final EIR showing that key access roadways were located 

outside the 100-year floodplain.

13

The staff memo also reflected information from the City’s Assistant 

Fire Chief, who serves as “emergency operations manager for the City’s

Emergency Operations Center.” According to the memo, the Assistant Fire 

Chief confirmed that “the Fire Department does not have significant flood or 

fire access/egress concerns with development above the 100-year floodplain at 

the site. He stated that if Graylawn Avenue were to be impacted by 

13 The staff memo noted in more detail that the FEMA mapping had 

differed from the hydrology maps presented in the Draft EIR which showed

“inundation of the Graylawn Avenue street section in a 100-year flood event,”

and that this discrepancy generated a Planning Commission “query

regarding the depth of floodwaters anticipated on Graylawn Avenue.” The 

memo then explained that subsequent conversations between the City 

Engineer and the hydrologist who prepared the modeling work on behalf of 

the City “led to the finding that the project modeling (FEIR Figures 4-3 

through 4-8) did not account for recent completion of the Payran area flood 

work and its impact of removing from the floodplain the area that FEMA 

designates as Zone A99 on its current mapping (FEIR Figure 4-2).” As 

explained in the Final EIR, “[t]he A99 designation is for areas that have

received substantial flood improvements, but where flood control projects are 

not yet complete or not yet accounted for in FEMA mapping.” Thus, the staff 

memo concluded, “consistent with the FEMA mapping, Graylawn and Jess 

Avenues, as well as properties within the A99 Zone remain outside of the 100-

year floodplain, both in the current condition and after the upstream 

terracing and cumulative upstream terracing with detention directed by the 

General Plan.” (Italics added.)
28

floodwaters in the future, tall/heavy vehicles and boats would be available for 

rescue/evacuations. Additionally, the area is not in the City’s ‘High Fire 

Severity Zone’ where large rapid fire development potential exits [sic]. While

there are empty fields nearby that could pose a hazard of fire spread, he 

notes, these areas are on level ground with light fuels and any fire in the 

fields or spread to any structures nearby would likely require an evacuation

of only impacted buildings, not the entire complex. The Fire Marshal’s 

acceptance of the EVA at Bernice Court as the second point of access will

provide adequate access in the case of an emergency.”

14 (Italics added.) 

Relying on Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 

petitioners characterize the City staff memo as a post-EIR analysis that is 

insufficient to remedy the EIR’s omission of a required public safety 

discussion of evacuation impacts. Sierra Watch involved an EIR for a new

resort with 850 lodging units, 30,000 square feet of commercial space, over 

3,000 parking spaces, and housing for up to 300 employees on approximately 

94 acres in Olympic Valley near Lake Tahoe. (Id. at p. 92.) There, the

petitioner challenged the adequacy of the EIR because, among other things,

its discussion of the environmental setting did not sufficiently acknowledge 

the proximity and uniqueness of Lake Tahoe. (Id. at p. 96.) The Court of 

Appeal agreed, observing that the EIR “offered only one parenthetical 

reference to Lake Tahoe” without addressing the lake’s importance, its 

characteristics, or its current condition. (Ibid.) Nor did the EIR consider the 

impact of the project’s generation of an additional 23,842 vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) per day on the clarity of the lake and the air quality of the 

14 Although petitioners are correct that the City staff memo does not 

mention when the Assistant Fire Chief made his statements to staff, the 

administrative record contains documentation that the statements were 

made in an email to staff dated January 14, 2020. 
29

lake basin. (Id. at pp. 97–102.) Although the county eventually analyzed the

impact of the additional VMT a few days before certifying the EIR (id. at 

p. 102), the Court of Appeal concluded the analysis came far too late to 

permit informed decisionmaking (id. at p. 103).

Sierra Watch offers no parallel to the situation here. As recounted

above, the EIR identified the relevant provisions in the City’s emergency 

response plan and took into account specific information about the Project

site and the actual threat of flood or fire at the site. Drawing from such 

information, the EIR then considered whether the Project would “[i]mpair 

implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency 

response plan or emergency evacuation plan” (Guidelines, Appendix G, italics 

added) and concluded it would not. This was sufficient to demonstrate the 

analytic route from specific underlying evidence to the ultimate conclusion.

(Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 404.) Moreover, even though the City

had not adopted an emergency evacuation plan, the City staff memo 

acknowledged the public concern over potential flood or fire evacuations. 

Staff spoke with the City’s Assistant Fire Chief and reported his assurance 

that the City Fire Department did not have significant flood “access/egress 

concerns” because the proposed development was situated above the 100-year 

floodplain and because “tall/heavy vehicles and boats would be available for 

rescue/evacuations” in the event of future floodwaters on Graylawn Avenue.

The memo also documented the City’s Assistant Fire Chief’s confirmation

that the Fire Department had no significant fire-related “access/egress 

concerns” because the area was not within the City’s “ ‘High Fire Severity

Zone’ ” where large rapid fire development potential exists. Thus, the staff 

memo provides additional evidence supporting the City’s certification of the 

EIR.
30

In short, petitioners have not met their burden of proving any 

inadequacy of the EIR with regard to its analysis of public safety impacts 

relating to emergencies. (Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 117.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to real party in 

interest.

_________________________

Fujisaki, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Tucher, P.J.

_________________________

Rodríguez, J.

Save N. Petaluma Rivers & Wetlands et al. v. City of Petaluma (A163192)